Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral on top of that – no note about auth/visibility scope or what happens for an unknown agent_id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, though it is terse to the point of under-informing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple idempotent read with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, this is minimally adequate. The remaining gap is that 'details' is undefined and there is no output schema, so the agent cannot anticipate the return shape or error behavior for a missing agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single agent_id parameter ('Agent ID to look up'), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format, provenance, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a specific registered agent'), and the word 'specific' implies a single-record lookup. However, it does not differentiate itself from near-siblings like list_agents, find_agents_by_capability, or get_agent_inbox, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_agents (bulk listing) or find_agents_by_capability (search by capability). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context beyond the one-line purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.